SOUND OFF

Hmm thats encouraging Alex, until your post Ive had minimal interest. I'll have to check it out and get back to ya

SPOILER ALERT I saw this movie last night and it was alright. It was too cheesy and long. It reminded me too much of Independence Day mixed with the Day After Tomorrow. The black scientist is like the scientist in Independence Day who takes his dad everywhere. Woody Harrilson (one of my favorite actors) sadly was like that crazy guy from Independence Day who flew into the space ship to kill them off. That stupid white guy that finally becomes the official President and want everyone else to just die is like that white guy from Independence Day who got punched either by the President or by someone on the staff. John cusac is like the Will Smith of the movie who SURVIVES A FREAKIN SUICIDE MISSION. LOL, HOW DO YOU SURVIVE A FREAKIN SUICIDE MISSION? WHY EVEN CALL IT A SUICIDE MISSION IF IT'S NOT HIGHLY LIKELY FOR YOU TO DIE WHILE ON THE MISSION? EPICALLY GAY!!! However, I digress. After the 30-45 minute to 1 hour ending of them "about" to die by either drowning in water or hitting a wall, I started rooting for them to just die. And then, what really was annoying was how the same group of ppl can escape THREE freaking disasters perfectly safe. THERE WAS NO LOGIC IN THIS MOVIE. JUST CRAP. I won't lie tho. This movie had me interested for a little when I thought everyone would die. Sadly they didn't. I wasn't disappointed the whole movie. Just the last 45 minutes to an hour, so I give it a 4, maybe 5 or 6 out of 10.

SPOILER ALERT I thought this movie was terrible. When John Cusaks character jumped that trench, then fought with that demon that came out of the trench, that was horrible CGI. Then to find out that the world didnt end because of some biblical prophecy but yet by mutated crab like people who have lived beneath the earth and were tired of how people were mis-treating the planet. Then when Stephen Baldwin got his arm shot off by that crazy shop keep. The cool part is we get to see that chicks bare ass, but how could she survive that third disaster? Being naked in ice water for that long, she would have died. Then at the end when they mated to keep the human race living on, that was pretty hot, then John Cusak and his friend stole that cow and his friend tried to make it with the cow! I wanna party with that guy. The two of us together? Forget it.

"then John Cusak and his friend stole that cow and his friend tried to make it with the cow! I wanna party with that guy. The two of us together? Forget it." Classic quote! +1

"Roger Ebert was enthusiastic about the film, giving it 3.5 stars out of 4, saying it "delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year." Can wejust go ahead and say that Ebert is full of shit? At one point he insults people who like big dumb CGI action films then he changes and says "since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year." Alex I'm missing that "To Fuel The Fire" quote man, bring it back!

Seen it yesterday. Great visuals but.... Awfull. its not just bad beeing bad, its worst beeing 2 hours and 38 minuts!

Its almost 2012 oh sh%^ ! Now its the mayan calander, don't they have a discovery channel dedicated to 100 ways the world is gonna end. you know whats funny is when i'm with a group of people or somethin that don't see too many great movies and they see somethin like this an they think its the ducks nuts lol.

The fire is not fuelled!! What do we do?! The end truly is nigh!

LOL I love that people complained about Alex's quote "To Fuel the Fire" and now people are wanting it back. So silly.

Can anyone tell me if it was better than Day After Tomorrow??? i thought DATM was a 7 out of 10 movie

I might go see this movie this week end.

if you want impressive visual effects and hand clenching intense movements then you might enjoy some of 2012.. if you want a decent story go elsewhere this thing is ott, stupid, insulting and full of plot holes.

In one word i can say its an excellent movie.. Excellent graphics..At the beginning of the movie after 10 minutes i saw my town name Vijayawada in Hindi letters. Buts its a long movie 2 hrs 30 min. Worthful to watch

Hey Squiggly_P When I read his review I just felt that he has given up on being a decent critic, so I'm assuming he gave it 4 out of 4 just to appease the audience, and I really do not want him too. I usually read his reviews and at times I agree and others I disagree, but he is a great critic and if he has thrown in the towel then fuck him, he needs to be honest and trash the film not give the fans what they want. I f he isn't willing to say "This film is an insult to the human race" then he lost me. I'll say that this film is a failure on epic porportions, plot holes, half-asses acting, and pitiful dialogue, I'm a fan of Peet, Cusack, Platt, and Ejiofor so thats maybe the only redeeming quality it has, but a good cast in a bad movie is still such a waste. My real beef is with Cusack he is a good actor yet he has really picked some bad films recently War, Inc for example but he can still really shine i.e. Martian Child, so I'm still pulling for him, but his performance in 2012 is just sad.

Its enjoyable watching R.E films, but he needs more realism, its such an unjust balance. I mean look at the story, actually a great story-line to really keep everyone interested, good plot hooks to keep the audience intrigiued. However then it falls at the limb with scene's like the Limo doing that crazy driving scene - i can accept a car can do that! BUT NOT A LIMO! It was just too much.

well im going to go c it any ways i dnt care how much yall think it sucked

LOL. I'm curious how many of the haters here ACTUALLY went and saw the movie before posting? Not many to be sure.

Good golly Miss Molly, GO WATCH 2005/6 "Solar Attack"/"Solar Strike" with Lou Gossett Jr. as the black president (whereas "Lethal Weapon"'s Danny Glover plays it in "2012"), the SAME Stephen McHattie as the main ship admiral in both movies, as too-similar plot in only 90 minutes. ("2012" is 170 min?) John Cusack plays a writer again in 2012, but he's not in Solar Attack. Chiwetel Ejiofor largely reprised his 'operative' role from Whedon's 2005 "Serenity," except in "2012" he's the good guy scientist. Mark Dacascos played the good scientist in "Solar Attack." (Mark played the lead zombie hunter in "I Am Omega" which was the same story released one month earlier than Will Smith's 2007 "I Am Legend." Hollywood: What, me original thought? Sy-Fy network (the artist formerly known as Sci-Fi) is playing "Solar Attack" RIGHT NOW. BUT "2012" IS MUCH MORE EXCITING AND A-movie SPECIAL EFFECTS AND WHOPPING ROLLER-COASTER RIDE, as long as you can get past the much-stretched scientific concepts and endless chain of amazing coincidences. Big fun because I'm big dumb! Emmerich is the 18th highest-grossing director in the USA, bubba. Whee doggies. It's the Sun, stupid, not an asteroid or comet of alien. DON'T YOU agree Stephen McHattie looks a lot like Lance Henriksen, seven years Steve's senior? "That's great, it starts with an earthquake.... It's THE end of the world as we know it, it's THE end of the world as we know it.... and I feel fine"--REM, from the 1987 vinyl album 'Document'

Just got back from the movie and I highly recommend it. The special effects were awesome; there's nothing like seeing the city you live in being wiped out. Sure, there were lots of things that were unbelievable, but it's a movie folks! I go to movies to be entertained, and 2012 was extremely entertaining. Roland needs to do a sequel where he blows up the entire galaxy! And Jack n Jill, you need to give up the mind altering drugs.

by the way, sorry for my mis-spelling some words in my comment before this one, i tend to mis-spedll when i'm typing fast!!!. Sorry, if that makes it harder to read my comment here before this one here!!!.

Was it just me or was this movie a $200 million metaphor for toilet training?

I thought there was gonna be a scene where Cusack holds up a boombox to the all the destruction to make it stop. That ending would of been more entertaining and make more sense.

Let's not forget that back in 1975, Irwin Allen the King of Disaster films directed "The Towering Inferno" with an all star cast. The film received 8 oscar nominations and won 3. It set the bar for disaster films to come, but looking back on it, the movie was a smoldering turd much like Roland Emmerich's 2012. Following in Irwin Allen's footsteps, Roland Emmerich is a film maker who is all about the eye candy. He's not much of a story teller but he certainly knows how to deliver a blockbuster. American Showman P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute" and Emmerich knows this all too well. Hack directors like Michael Bay, Brett Ratner, McG, Paul W.S. Anderson and Roland Emmerich are film school rejects just looking to cash in. I suppose they understand the true meaning of Show Biz "ka-ching" but they fail miserably when it comes to the craft of cinematic storytelling. They only know how to deliver forgettable box office flash-in -the-pan fluff which has no real substance and no reason to exist, except to make money, of course. Watching 2012 is like eating cotton candy: It is of little substance, 8-year-old boys love it and although it might taste good at first, ultimately it's not good for you.

@ Motorola59: "I think the movie buffs have to accept the fact that they are not the core audience of any "wide release" films. This movie is made for the masses, not for people who study the fine art of movie making and its historical or cultural relevance." This is a really vague argument. I've loved a ton of 'wide release' films. The last film I loved was Where the Wild Things Are. I enjoyed Public Enemies, Taken, District 9 (Tho I have serious issues with it as well), Inglorious Basterds... All films from this year that I have enjoyed a lot. Those were all wide release films and generally expected to do reasonably well. Most of them did well enough. You're basically saying that SOME films, like 2012 and Transformers 2, appeal more to a massive audience for some reason, and thus do better. You're saying it's just this sort of movie that's appealing, but I think you're wrong. You'd be surprised how little penetration a lot of films' marketing campaigns get to some people. While I am a closet filmmaker / animator, I happen to have a 'day job' that is akin to a factory job. The people I work with had NO IDEA what District 9 was, and generally remain totally unaware of 90% of the films that get released. The films they all recognize? Saw. Transformers. Ice Age. Pixar stuff. Night at the Museum. GI Joe. Why? The marketing for most films doesn't directly target these people. These people go home and sit on their asses watching American Idol and America's Got Talent and whatever else people like that watch. Placing ads in those time slots is not cheap at all, and studios will sink the most marketing cash into the films that cost them the most to make in an effort to bring that money back to the theaters. The result is a ton of ads for GI Joe and Transformers blanketing every aspect of life, from TV to Fast Food to tie-in marketing deals with other large companies like pepsi and coke in exchange for product placement, etc. The simple fact is that most people aren't on the internet looking for movies to watch. While a lot of people have the internet, the majority of them just use it to goto a few different major websites. These people simply don't give a flying fuck about movies until a movie is able to penetrate their wall of ignorance and force them to notice it. Yeah, they might see an ad or two of the latest Tarantino movie or maybe one quick ad for something like "The Fantastic Mr Fox", they'll see countless ads all over the place for Transformers or GI Joe. It'll be on magazine covers in stores, on their happy meal box, on a billboard, in a number of TV ads, on the radio... Eventually they'll start thinking "Hey, this seems really popular!" Once they notice it, the odds of them going to see it go way up, and as you say, these people don't really care enough to notice plot holes and they are so ignorant of so much that most of the logic flaws in these movies go right past them. You can't spot a flaw in a film if you aren't aware of it being a flaw. The fact that so many people can shrug off so much stupid crap being thrown at them is simply due to the fact that they don't know any better. So basically you're justifying the existence of these films by acknowledging the fact that there are a lot of ignorant people who enjoy them. These same people whould love any number of GOOD movies, tho. The Matrix was a pretty big movie, and very popular, and it wasn't made for mass consumption. Saving Private Ryan was not at all a worthless film, and it made way above what it was speculated to earn at theaters. A super-violent R-rated film - something that most people tend to avoid in the theater - was the biggest financial success of the year. Terminator 2, Back to the Future, The Dark Knight... There are plenty of examples of 'big' movies that aren't poorly made. The fact that the people who made those films successful were largely not interested in their actual stories or characters so much as they were in the effects and action in them is exactly the reason that studios shouldn't be targeting the lowest common denominator. Making over $200 Million, or even $100 Million is not very common at all for theatrically released films. Even popular films don't often do it. You have to really market the fuck out of a movie to get it over $200 Million, and there are some levels of marketing that will guarantee you huge opening weekends and thus pretty much guarantee you rake in over $100 million. Wolverine made nearly $200 Million but was panned by just about everyone who saw it. It's considered a 'failure' by a lot of people, but the thing has earned well over twice it's budget. That's not a failure, and that's the reason they make these movies. Studios know they can market the hell out of something and still make their investment back and profit, even if the film is a critical failure. Cause you know those ignorant people? They don't read reviews, either. These same people are also why they make nothing but sequels and remakes. These ignorant 'masses' can't be bothered to give a shit about something new. Give them a name they recognize and you've already gotten half way through their wall of stupid. I'm rambling now, but yeah. Your argument doesn't really validate these films so much as it condemns them further.

@motorola59 This movie is for what Jeffrey Wells calls the Eloi and Joe Popcorn.

HI, I am a Freelancing artist of Print media. I saw this movie. I dont have words left to express my feelings.........its simply gr8. The best movie I have ever saw. Thanks to to entire team of Making 2012. Thanks a lot lot lot.....tones of thanks. Is there any way to thank Mr. Ronald Emmerich personally??????? I am deing to say him thanks for his work. Plz plz plzplzplzplzplzplzzzzzzzzzzzzz give a chance to speak to him and to speak my heart out. Plzzzzz

@ Squiggly_P No, that's not what I was saying. Let me rephrase my point. People who are really, really, into film making basically waste their time and energy when they "expect" a movie that is budgeted to do more than 100 million to be "creative, historically accurate, and/or "deep". My point had absolutely nothing to do with the numbers it actually does at the box office. More-so, I was addressing the critics who expected more from a movie that was made for a wide audience. To further explain my point. Take music. Because I am a musician; to hear people compare Britney Spears to Aretha Franklin drives me up the wall. But, I don't bother arguing about it. Why not? It is because I know people who are really, really are into the art of music making will never ever make such a comparison. The market base who buys Britney, is not the same market base who buys Aretha. Do they sometimes cross over? Of course they do, but that's the exception as oppose to being the rule. So, for someone who is apart of the Aretha market base to complain about Britney's music ... makes no sense to me. It wasn't made for you in the first place. I wasn't justifying why certain films exist. I was asking why are people wasting their time tearing this movie apart, when it wasn't made for them. Sure, most (if not all) of the criticisms are valid. But you (not specifically, but the general) should have known the quality of movie you were going to see before you even went to see it. To go into a hole in the wall restaurant, and complain about the food, service, and decor simply confounds me. Just as people complaining about this film, with in depth analysis. It confounds me. If you re-read my original post with a different premise, you will clearly see that I was not validating, nor condemning the existence of any type of film. I was asking "Why are you wasting your time criticizing this movie? Did you expect something different?" @ escobar2248 I agree with you. THAT is what the movie was supposed to do .. .draw you in with the CGI. I guess we'll see what happens next week. @ EJP LMAO!!!! I love it! I think you are exactly right!

For the consistent haters of these films, they're made to be entertaining, and that's it. If you want to pick it apart, then you obviously have more talent and imagination than the writers and producers, right? Let's see you submit your scripts and ideas to Hollywood. Then we'll find out if you're as smart as you think you are. By the way, oh bitchers, they still got your money and attention, didn't they?

I have never laughed so hard in a film like this before. John Cusack had 100 million lives in this film, and how many times do we need to see a plane take off and then fall as it takes off and then come back up again and be totally surprised that it made it. The visuals were amazing, but that's about it. The Day After Tomorrow was a far better film!

so does this mean the gov't will follow footsteps and make an Ark for our 2012 fiasco lol #57 (Poking fun at my boy Tra la la la) well good thing for you, you and your gf might get that chance in a few years to actually see how that ride is in real life lol btw for those that will take this as me hating, I'm not. I expected to see what we all saw, I just would've prefer a real close to possible real life ending rather then Noah's sequel. For example, shit what if there was no Ark what now and what can it look like yada yada.

#60 Only if we can learn to fly a plane and obtain one then. Also if we have writers that let us drive through buildings and fly under falling buildings and cracks int he earth without being hit by an insane amount of debris! lol We'd start from Africa again I presume. It wasn't perfect at least. They had like 9 arcs or something and only 3 were working so they did miss out on A LOT of extra room for people, supplies, and cultural icons.

Thought it was utter toos, and way too long utter toss at that. The destruction pr0n was impressive enough I suppose, especially up to the initial airborne escape from California, but it did get more than a bit repetive after a while. Less said about the actual story the better as well. I know its a popcorn 'leave your brain at home' movie. Unfortunately I think my brain overheard the 'mutant neutrinos' line and reasserted control at that point. All power to you if you liked it, but I'd have been demanding my money back if I'd paid to see it!

I waited anxiously for this movies' release and was absolutely disappointed. I don't care how good the special effects were - the subject matter of this film could've had a fantastic storyline which was just like the continents in the film - unable to form a solid foundation for anything to survive. Absolute pants and a waste of an important context! COMPLETE RUBBISH!!!

its nuthing but a ploy to draw more to there websites and forums. if anything did happen i kind of would like to see year around 80 degrees and allways sunny we can getb our water from mars

saw it last night. after watching RE's other over loaded CGI crap movies, i wasn't expecting much else. Both Independance Day and Godzilla were massive disapointments, and i didn't even bother with Day After Tomorrow. though i did like The Patriot.....a surprising non-CGI film. but i digress a little. once again, the acting/script was horrible, there were way too many sub-plots, and the ending was obvious and predictable. but if your just in it for the CGI stuff, then go see it on the big screen. there are some scenes that are worth it just for that.

I especially enjoyed the scene where Cusack chugged a couple of 40's of Steel Reserve (211) and hung out the side of the small plane as he pissed into the lava filled crevice that L.A. had become and he put the fires out!!!! And then, when he stuck his hand outside the cockpit window to use the spinning propeller to cut slices of salami and gorgonzola for salami and gorgonzola on rye sandwiches for everybody!!!! Oh, the humanity.........

i think when 2012 comes and nuthing happends the 2012 websites will look pretty dumb.. cant wait to see what excuse they come up with

@#43 Wow.... I mean WOW... you're a fool. Of course people are going to see an overhyped movie, that doesn't mean it's good. You need to be stripped of your right to vote, because you are obviously a fool. You are the reason this movie made any money after the first week or in dvd sales. I hope what you typed was a joke. Idiot.

@#76- No, what i said was not a joke!, so deal with it!.